Suresh Kumar.M v. The Chief Educational Officer
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16524 and 16526 of 2020 M.Suresh Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Office, Thnkasi District, Thenkasi.
2.The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Office, Thenkasi District, Thenkasi.
3.The Secretary, Ramaswamy Pillai Higher Secondary School, Ilanji, Thenkasi District, Thenkasi.
... Respondents PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the 1st respondent vide his impugned proceedings Oo.Mu.No.7969/E2/2018, dated 04.08.2020 (served to the petitioner on 18.12.2020) and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to sanction the incentive increment to the petitioner for having acquired M.Phil., degree within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 and R2 :Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam Additional Government Pleader ****
ORDER
The petitioner herein has possessed higher education during his service under the third respondent herein and he aspired to avail incentive increment for his higher education, in terms of the Regulations governing him. When the third respondent had sought for the approval for registration of the petitioner's higher qualifications for the purpose of granting incentive increment, the same came to be rejected by the first respondent herein, stating that, the petitioner had not obtained prior permission of the Authorities, for undergoing higher education. 1/3
2.The petitioner herein intends to avail incentive increment for having possessed higher education qualification and the purpose for which the ratification of his higher degree was sought for was to make the petitioner eligible for availing the said increment.
3. This Court, in various writ petitions have held that claims for conferment of incentive increment for acquiring higher educational qualifications cannot be denied on the ground that such higher qualifications were acquired without prior permission. One such order of this Court passed in the case of J.Tamilrajan vs. Department of School Education and others passed in W.P.(MD) No.4019 of 2018, reads thus:- "3.In W.P(MD).No.1049 of 2012, a learned single Judge of this Court has considered the similar question and has rejected the claim of the department that if the higher education is pursued without consent of the permission of the department, the teacher was not entitled to the incentive increments for obtaining such higher qualification. Following the said Judgment, another learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18086 of 2017 has held that want of permission cannot stand in the way of the petitioner being favoured with the incentive increments for having obtained higher qualifications. While doing so, paragraph 7 of the order, this Court has observed as follows:
" 7.This Court in the unreported decision made in W.P(MD).No. 21895 of 2015 dated 08.12.2015, while considering the claims for conferment of incentive increment for acquiring qualification and the contention that they were acquired without prior permission, held that conferment of incentive increment cannot be denied on that score. Acquiring higher education by the teacher is only for the benefit of students. In that view of the matter, the first ground of opposition stands rejected"
4. In view of the above, the sole ground on which the authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner towards incentive increments fails and the writ petition is liable to succeed. The impugned order of rejection is therefore, quashed. The respondents are directed to sanction the incentive increments to the petitioner for obtaining the higher qualifications namely M.A.History and B.Ed Degree from the date of acquisition of the respective qualifications. The said exercise shall be completed within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
2/3
4. By applying the ratio held in the aforesaid decision as well as various other decisions, on the same line, it can be said that the petitioner herein would be entitled for incentive increment for having possessed higher educational qualification, even though he had not obtained prior permission of the Authorities for having undergone the course for such higher education. 5.In the light of the above observations, the third respondent Management is granted liberty to make an appropriate proposal to the first respondent herein, recommending the candidature of the petitioner herein for grant of incentive increment for having possessed his higher educational degree. On receipt of such a proposal, the first respondent herein, shall positively consider the same, if not otherwise disqualify, in the line of the observations made by this Court and extend the benefit of incentive increment, atleast within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal.
6.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) CMR To 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the Chief Educational Office, Thnkasi District, Thenkasi.
2.The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Office, Thenkasi District, Thenkasi.
+1 CC to M/s.AJMAL ASSOCIATES ( SR-3641[F] dated 08/02/2021 ) +1 CC to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER(SR-3808[F] dated 08/02/2021) Order made in W.P.(MD)No.19823 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16524 and 16526 of 2020 05.02.2021 DKS(CO) SRS (18/03/2021) 3P : 5C 3/3